To finish the list from my previous post, we jump back to the present day to someone with a history perhaps even more complex than the Apostle Paul. This is probably the biggest risk I have ever taken with a blog post. There are people who castigate him as someone who shames gay people. There are people who laud him as an example of being cured of homosexuality and/or transgender. But if you listen to his personal testimony rather than jumping to preconceived notions, you might find that he has gone far beyond these things in his message.

Sy Rogers has run the gamut from being associated with more than one letter of the LGBT acronym to being an active member of the ex-gay movement. Now, according to recent remarks I have heard him make to audiences, he simply preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I find his story a fascinating journey from a troubled early life to a life of experimenting with lifestyles and identities to a triumphant and satisfied life of peace in Christ. And it is a story that I present here as faithfully as possible as an objective reporter, not an editorial commentator.

This is the second blog post I have written about Sy Rogers. The first, posted on 8/8/14, found no fault with him. It only found fault with those who claim that he is a cured transsexual. In their zeal, they ignore his own testimony. That post is consistent with this one. He never really is or was transgender. It was an experiment after trying a number of other paths. Fortunately for him, the Lord spared him from a terrible mistake.

It was when Sy focused on pleasing God that he found peace. And that is the core of the message he now preaches.

So early in life that he does not even know at what age it occurred, he began to be molested with regularity. Outside of the home, before he ever experienced any sexual attractions or became aware of any sexual orientation, Sy’s speech and mannerisms made him a target for reprehensible verbal attacks and bullying, using terms for being gay and/or effeminate that are too vile to repeat. While most of his peers did not join in, none of them did much, if anything, to come to his aid. And it should be pointed out that his attackers were not people who identified as LGBT.

At some point in adolescence, Sy decided that his attackers might be correct and that this is who he was. He began to seek and find same sex relationships. The verbal attacks and bullying continued through school until he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and was stationed in Hawaii. There his fellow sailors pretty much left him alone. He theorizes that they respected anyone who had what it took to make it through basic training, regardless of any other personal views. He used whatever free time allotted to him to lead a double life: sailor following orders on duty and active involvement in the gay community off base. This included him meeting and becoming friends with men who identified as gay Christians. They attended churches that identified as open and affirming of the gay lifestyle. While Sy believed in God his whole life, he was lukewarm even about this church because he was angry with God.

The next step in Sy’s journey occurred after he finished his tour with the Navy. He enrolled in college. It was a difficult experience for him. He became the target for any anti-gay sentiment on campus. The college would not allow him to have a dorm roommate. Petitions were filed against him. He was nominated for homecoming queen as a joke. He also says that there were some Christians who cared enough about him to try to witness to them. But the mistake they made, well-meaning as they were, was to try to win theological arguments with him instead of emphasizing that God indeed loves him.

Around this time, two of his gay Christian friends, friends whose marriage he celebrated with them, contacted him with news they were excited to share. By reading the Bible for themselves, they became convinced that the gay theology taught by their church was in error. They renounced their marriage and their gay lifestyle, were born again and started to attend a conservative church.

The initial effect that this had on Sy was to challenge a key pillar in his life, the teaching of the liberal church that God had made him gay and he should celebrate it. But that pillar wasn’t immediately replaced with a new support system. He decided that he was a failure as a man, as so many people were telling him. In fact, maybe he wasn’t a man at all. The only way that made sense for him to be born again was to be reborn as a woman. He went so far as to live as a woman for about 18 months in preparation for “sex change”.

At that time, Sy heard directly from God even though he wasn’t actively seeking Him. God found him when no Christian, no mocker, no church led Sy to Him. God and particularly the love and redemption of God became real to him. He reports that God didn’t say for him to stop being gay, but simply to walk with Him. Sy realized this was what he had needed all along. Having been told that he was reprobate and couldn’t be saved on the one hand, and that God made him gay on the other, he decided to turn to the Bible for himself to see what God had to say on the matter.

As a result, Sy turned away from living as a woman. He didn’t return to a gay lifestyle, even though his gay friends attempted to bring him back there. Soon, he realized that he needed to associate with people who shared his current values. He started attending a church. In this church, he found the male companionship he was lacking all his life and so desperately needed. They didn’t judge him as effeminate, which Sy admits that he still was very much so at the time. They simply drew him into their fellowship over and over again. For the first time in his life, he met men who simply accepted him as a man and didn’t want to either beat him up or have sex with him. This required an adjustment period for him, one that he was able to eventually work through.

Salvation is not followed by “and they lived happily ever after.” Sy faced trials. The main one was that he still had urges for sex with other men and the guilt he experienced as a result. He became a pastor, got married and has a family (a daughter) and turned to the ex-gay movement, becoming an active participant in it.

But none of those things helped to get rid of the urges or the guilt: of feeling unworthy of salvation. He needed something greater and he found it: a closer relationship and intimacy with God. Sy reports that he received a word from the Lord, reminding him of two things: that God is from everlasting to everlasting and knows the end from the beginning, and that God knew he would continue to have these urges after he was saved. The key was not the struggle against the urges. The key was to substitute something better and stronger. Sy learned to confess that yes, he still has these desires, but his love and desire for the Lord is greater.

Sy is still involved in ministry, but is no longer part of the ex-gay movement. His focus is not on rebuking people for their sins, but for showing them the light, love and Gospel of Jesus Christ. He counts his own salvation as the single most important accomplishment in his life. And he counts leading others to Christ as his most important ministry. When people give their life to the Lord, he trusts that the Lord will convict them of their sins, whatever they may be. It’s not his role to judge. He doesn’t need to do God’s work for Him.

Sy told a story in one of the videos of him that I watched. It is a good example of where his emphasis is now. He reports that a pastor told Sy that when a same sex couple moved next door to him, he shunned them and made his disapproval of them apparent. Sy asked the pastor what he would do if an unmarried heterosexual couple moved next door to him. The pastor affirmed that he and his wife would invite them to dinner at his house. Sy was able to show him the hypocrisy of offering fellowship to the one couple and denying it to the other, even though the pastor admitted that he believes both are living in sin in their relationship. The witness the pastor was giving to the first couple was helping push them away from Christ, the last thing any Christian should be doing.

My testimony is quite different from Sy Rogers’. I grew up in a stable home with an older brother and parents who were married nearly 65 years when my dad passed from this earth and my mom followed him 18 months later. I had good relationships with both my parents who were both present in my life (including a stay at home mom). They loved me and provided for me, taking care of my needs and even some of my wants and desires. But they certainly were not indulgent as many of my friends’ parents were. They had old-fashioned values (and happened to be a half generation older than most of my friends’ parents). My mom made sure that I went to church until I left home for college: then I could decide for myself what I wanted to do. And I loved church and Sunday school.

For a while, I turned away from the institution of church as many of my generation did. But I met a woman when I was 27 years old. Before we even started courting, her Christian testimony as part of her life story, not as a rebuke or in an attempt to lead me to God (she knew that at some level I believed in Him), convicted me that I needed to return to church and the fellowship of other Christians. We fell in love and got married and I became both husband and instant father to my infant stepson. And even though the marriage failed within a year, as did an attempt at reconciling 25 years later, I know that my return to church was a marvelous gift of God through this woman to whom I was once married. Slowly but surely, I grew as a Christian because of taking that step. And I must add that I initially returned to the church I attended as a child, in part because the pastor always was encouraging and friendly should we meet in public during that period of being away from the church. He never chastised me for my absence.

I never have identified as gay. My transition was never about doing so to get rid of guilt or shame when having sex with men. I have never had sex with men and did not transition to seek a sexual relationship with a man. If I end up in a marriage relationship with a man, it will be because my future spouse and I will, after much prayer, have arrived at the belief that this is God’s will for our lives. I am open and submitted to God’s will for my life. I have had men attracted to me since I began transition. I did not seek them and none of them were God’s will for me to pursue.

At the same time, I knew I was female from the time I was seven years old. Unlike Sy’s testimony, it was not an experiment because nothing else was working. I was quite content in my childhood, doing well in school, having a good relationship with my brother who I emulated in many ways until I got older and started to express my own likes and dislikes. I loved sports and had male friends and was never accused of being effeminate, and certain not bullied or mocked or called insulting names. My struggle was not so much internal as my need to deal with the knowledge that there were (apparently) almost no other people like me plus my awareness that society considered people like me something to be mocked, scorned or condemned.

But none of that kept me away from the church and God. In my case, I actively served in church as a trustee and an elder before I was saved. During this time, I attended regularly and took an active part in church life. I was respected. I served on the pastor nominating committee when the pastor I had known for well over 20 years at that church resigned to go to another church.

I was quite the ecumenicist at the time, studying other religions including eastern religions and philosophies. Like Sy, God found me in my own home, an answer to a very open-ended question I asked. I was 36 years old. From that time, I put away all other religions, and my relationship with God grew closer and closer. I began to grieve when I fell short of the glory of God rather than look to excuse or justify my sins. I occasionally gave a sermon when the pastor was on vacation, and I gave the only altar call I ever heard given in that church. I was convicted to pray and read the Bible daily and read the Bible cover to cover. (I would estimate that I’ve done so at least 15 times by now, sometimes in a year, sometimes more slowly and more studiously.)

Two and a half years after I was saved, I became part of a worldwide ministry (primarily men), a non-denominational missionary outreach of local churches. It was here that I had even stronger and closer fellowship with men, wonderful Christian role models, especially as I was able to go outside my local area in the ministry and see men in positions of greater authority. I also saw many strong and loving Christian marriages, with wonderful relationships between husbands and wives.

I was in the main part of that ministry for nearly 21 years. I still love the work of that ministry and support it financially as I am now in a peripheral part of it. I have calculated that to the glory of God, He equipped me to have a tangible part in the distribution of well over 300,000 copies of His word (either full Bibles or pocket New Testaments) through personal donations, by placing them directly in the hands of people or in various locations where they were accepted, by raising funds by speaking in churches, or by creating the assignments for teams of men to go out and distribute His word.

But here is a key point in my testimony: when He saved me, God knew I would transition 23 years after I was saved. He also knew I would continue to grow in His word, love Him more and more, be active in a Bible-believing church, and give my Christian testimony (as I am doing right now). In addition to God’s foreknowledge, there’s a more subtle point. Those 23 years were a long time of being in God’s word until I saw the scriptures that showed me God’s mind on this matter of how I was created. I did not act on transitioning until I had this Biblical knowledge. In addition, although my life had experienced its share of relationship and financial struggles, the need to live as my authentic self came at a time when my life was content and untroubled by anything else.

Furthermore, I still distribute His word on a limited basis as well as continuing to contribute to the purchase of scripture (whether for me to hand out or for others to distribute, mostly in countries where they can afford to purchase far less than the need). I am currently a member of a church that is also another well-known worldwide Christian ministry: the Salvation Army. I have shared my Christian testimony and my transgender testimony with a number of people there. I walk in the light and no longer hide who I am in darkness. And just before Christmas 2016, the Lord gave me a wonderful encouragement. I was able to hand out about 75 copies of His word to the needy people of the area who were picking up presents for their children and food for their holiday dinners. And we would have been able to hand out more scriptures if we hadn’t run out. We will be better prepared next year to help our neighbors satisfy their hunger for God’s word as well as their hunger for a celebratory feast.

A second key point in my testimony is that once I reached the point where I considered acting on transitioning, I did not keep this knowledge from my pastor at the time (not the church I go to now). I came out to him early in the process. We prayed together and searched the scriptures together. I spoke to whoever he wanted me to speak to on the matter. Throughout the process, he never stopped showing me Christian love or respecting me as a person. He continued to acknowledge my authentic Christian identity.

I have no idea if Sy Rogers would accept my testimony. I have no idea if he would be willing to share a stage with me to present our life stories and then carry out the important work of witnessing for Christ. I certainly have no right to speak for him on a topic where I have not heard him speak. What I do know is that in his current testimony, he does not identify as having been gay or transgender. He considers those symptoms of the brokenness of his upbringing, not identity.

What I have in common with Sy Rogers is that I have a life story and the most important part is what God has done for me in my life. As I routinely tell people, first I am a Christian: that is my eternal spiritual identity. Next I am female: that is my innate gender identity. Somewhere down on the list is the anatomical incongruence that makes me transgender.

Someone who is generally recognized as a Christian leader in the United States recently commented that Jesus wasn’t always loving. Any Christian leader should tremble when making remarks like that. Jesus’ rebukes were almost always directed at those in religious leadership who enforced the letter of the law without understanding or including the love, mercy and compassion of God that was at the heart of the spirit of the law; who required burdens of their proselytes that they themselves would not bear; who condemned tax collectors for cheating the people when collecting taxes for the Roman government but were just as guilty for their involvement in cheating the people in the temple when it came to exchanging their currency for the shekel to pay the tax or in declaring their offering blemished so they could sell them another animal for sacrifice.

When Jesus taught and even corrected multitudes of the common people, it was never in a harsh or attacking way. As Paul advised in Colossians 4:6, so did Jesus minister to the people: his speech always with grace, seasoned with salt. The grace, lovingkindness, compassion, gentleness, healing, feeding and freeing the people from the bondage of the Law was what drew people to Him. The salt was to convict them when they were violating the spirit of the Law or were slow to see and hear the message in His teaching. But if the message is all salt, who can swallow it? It drives the people away.

And Jesus did not rebuke the Roman authorities and other Gentiles who did not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He didn’t fear them. Why should he? It wasn’t that they were excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. Their time would come in the next 10-15 years. No, it was simply because He knew that they were not ready to receive His message.

But today, leaders routinely attack those who are outside of the body of Christ, who do not consider the Bible their authority, for doing things and committing sins contrary to Biblical teaching. Of course they don’t. Why would they follow the teachings of something that they don’t consider authoritative?

Judgment begins within the Church, not outside of it. When the body of Christ gets its act together and presents a Christlike face to the rest of the world, then we can do a more effective job of drawing people to Christ. Yes, there will always be those who hate us, because the world hated Him before they hated us. But if one must suffer, it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing wrong.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? – Romans 2:1-3

One of the most beloved novels of all time is Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”. The two main characters in this novel are able to come together in a loving relationship only after one of them overcomes internal pride and the other overcomes internal prejudice. Clearly both pride and prejudice, if left unchecked, would have had a cost: the loss of love.

The pride talked about by the title and the character’s initial point of view relate to the type of pride that is viewed in Judeo-Christian principles as sinful. It is the opposite of humility and equated with arrogance, haughtiness, disdain and thinking more highly of oneself than is justified (conceit). The Bible warns us that this type of pride precedes a fall.

It is not the same as the pride that one feels for the genuine accomplishments of their children, their team, their group or their country. It also includes self-respect and a sense that one is a deserving of respect as anyone else. While pride in the first definition comes from a sense of selfish superiority, in the latter definition it is an assertion of equality.

June has become known as Pride Month for members of the LGBT+ coalition. Ideally, it should celebrate the second sense of pride: equality, not superiority. And recently in Orlando, we saw the price of Pride in the massive loss of life and injury to members of the LGBT+ coalition as a result of hatred and violence. As oppressed and marginalized members of society, it is a price we have paid many times. Orlando happened to be one of the steeper prices.

That said, I will now turn to the main thrust of the article: the price of prejudice. In doing so, I will turn from the death of many by violence to the death of one by age and infirmity.

Muhammad Ali was one of the most recognizable people in the world during most of his life. His fame far transcended the world of sports. To many he was a champion, not just in the boxing ring but in the arena of civil rights and the anti-Vietnam War movement. To others, he was the epitome of the arrogant pride described previously.

A major source of Ali’s controversial image was religion. The most symbolic example of this was his change from his birth name of Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali. (I had not yet reached my teen years when Ali changed his name. I certainly am far more appreciative of the reasons and significance for it now.)

In childhood, Ali was brought up in a home that was neither Muslim or irreligious. He was brought up in a Christian home. His father was Methodist and his mother was Baptist.

Ali didn’t convert to any old religion. He joined Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam. Without getting into the details of their beliefs, one of the greatest attractions of the movement to black people was its promise of a decisive answer to the systemic racism experienced by Blacks in the United States.

Similarly, the existence of racism in the life of Malcolm X and his reaction to it was a significant influence in leading Malcolm to convert from being known for his anti-religious stance to becoming a member of the Nation of Islam. This is clearly seen in “The Autobiography of Malcom X” (which is, followed by Alan Paton’s “Cry the Beloved Country”, the most significant book I have read in terms of shaping my attitude towards civil rights and social justice and in opposition to racism).

The incidents of racism in the life of Muhammad Ali, including during his formative years, are also well-documented. It is hard to imagine that racism was not the primary incubator that led Ali to begin to regularly attend Nation of Islam meetings and eventually become a member. Furthermore eleven years later, Ali, like his mentor Malcom X, eventually broke with the Nation of Islam and converted to mainstream Sunni Islam. He also developed an interest in the Islamic practice of Sufism in later life. Therefore, we have multiple indications of Ali’s religious development, none of which ever brought him back to Christianity.

Only God knows the fate of Muhammad Ali’s eternal soul. But two things related to this blog post are abundantly clear in Christian theology:

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (from John 14:6)

Not everyone will be saved, but woe be it to those who put a stumbling block in the way of another person’s salvation.

No one is perfect and we shall have things for which to answer to God. Those Christians who contributed to the system of racism in this country and elsewhere in the world, if they have not repented of those sins, will have to answer for that.

Racial segregation and other forms of racial prejudice are illegal in the United States in just about every situation of public accommodation, although de facto segregation still occurs. But now we see the issue of unfounded prejudice rising up against transgender people. Sadly, once again some Christians are not only part of this prejudice, they are at the forefront of it. Sadder still are some black Christians who are championing the efforts to discriminate against transgender people. Have they so soon forgotten the lies told about them and the reasons why the races needed to be separated? And have they so soon forgotten that in many locations, while the white bathrooms were gendered, the black (aka Negro or Colored bathrooms as they were called in those days) were not?

Tell us, black Christian leaders of anti-transgender forces, what horrible things were black men doing to black women in those bathrooms? (Yes, that was a rhetorical question meant to show absurdity and accuse people only of hypocrisy.)

Woe to you Christians who tell yourselves that your sins aren’t so bad, and justify yourselves that at least you aren’t wicked perverts like these transgender people. What will you do when the judgment by which you judged transgender people is meted out to you? What will you do when you are called to account for putting a stumbling block in the way of transgender people, turning them away from Christ?

I am amazed with joy when I meet another transgender person who is a Christian. My respect for them is profound. I know that their faith has stood tests that Christians in some foreign countries face, but most Christians in the U.S. could never conceive of. It takes great spiritual strength to continue to trust in the Lord when you are told repeatedly that you are forsaken by God, given over to Satan, sinful, perverted, wicked and condemned to Hell.

I have been blessed to find a local, evangelical church with overwhelming acceptance of me by those who know about my transgender circumstance. The transgender Christians who have reached out to me have not been nearly as fortunate. What I do, I do for the glory of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But I also do it so that other transgender Christians may soon receive the same acceptance I have received. And I do it so that other transgender people may learn that Christ loves them, too.

An ending to this blog post was elusive. Then I happened across something about another controversial figure from the mid-1960’s: Barry Goldwater. As I watched a couple of videos and read some background information, I knew his POV would tie things altogether.

Senator Goldwater was known as the leader of the Conservative movement in the United States. George Will once remarked after Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter that it took 16 years to count the votes from 1964 and Goldwater won.

But did you know the following about Goldwater?

He was pro-choice.

He favored gays serving in the U.S. military, noting that gays had served honorably as soldiers dating back at least to the time of Julius Caesar. His remarks indicated that he only cared if you shot straight, not whether or not you were straight.

In his later years, he supported full civil rights for gays.

He decried the rise to power of the religious right in the 1980’s. He identified as a person with Christian values and was known as an honest person of firm principles. But he opposed the political attitude of this group of conservatives who required total agreement and acted as if they were speaking for God. He was against Pat Robertson’s political campaigns and when Jerry Falwell said that “Every good Christian should be concerned” about the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, Goldwater replied that “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” (It was noted by those present that reporters had used “ass” in place of a more sensitive part of the anatomy.)

He found himself increasingly at odds with the conservative wing of the Republican Party, labeling them as “extremists”. A few years before he died, he claimed they hurt the GOP more than the Democrats had and forbade them from associating his name with anything they did. In 1996, he noted with irony to Republican Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, that the two of them were now the liberals of the party.

His reputation on civil rights for Blacks has been dominated by his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the timing of which coincided with his campaign for President, giving it high visibility. What many don’t know is that he desegregated the Arizona Air National Guard two years before the President Truman did the same with the U.S. Military (a move which Goldwater had urged). He also voted for every piece of federal civil rights legislation during his time in the U.S. Senate until the 1964 Act and he had voted for the original Senate version of the 1964 Act. He opposed the final version of the 1964 Act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, giving power to the Federal Government (and taking away power given to the states by the Constitution) that was not provided for in the Constitution. It was that firmness of principle that I mentioned previously, but based on American law, not on a self-proclaimed pipeline from God.

Goldwater’s opposition to the final version of the 1964 Act is rooted in the same quarrel that he had with both liberal Democrats and the Religious Right. Goldwater as a staunch defender of liberty and justice was opposed to any form of coercion, whether it was from the government or from Christian clergy and organized groups of the religious right. This leads us to another high price for prejudice.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.” That quote (or one of its variants) didn’t originate with Barry Goldwater. But he used it during his 1964 campaign and lived by it.

As a young man, Goldwater took over running the family business, the eponymous department store which was the largest in Phoenix. He didn’t practice racial discrimination in business and his experience in Phoenix was that much of the desegregation of that city occurred because where moral force was insufficient, enlightened self-interest worked. Other business owners saw that desegregation and civil rights was good for business. Allowing black people equal access to jobs increased the consumer base and disposable income.

Based on Goldwater’s philosophy, I believe that he would not have supported laws and lawsuits against small businesses that refused to provide cakes, flowers or photographs for same-sex weddings. He would have encouraged competing businesses to embrace such customers and be rewarded with increased sales.

He believed that enlightened self-interest would eventually bring about civil rights for black people even in the Deep South. But there were two things he either failed to consider or didn’t weigh highly enough to change his thinking. The first is the vagueness of “eventually”. In the places where discrimination against Blacks ran deepest, “eventually” appeared to be a long way off and black people had run out of patience. Between Supreme Court decisions, strikes, sit-ins, freedom riders and the occasional use of Federal troops, civil rights momentum was building. While Black leaders of the day appreciated Goldwater’s honesty and sincere belief in his philosophy, they saw the adoption of his policies as a roadblock to that momentum. Black people had waited long enough, even 100 years since the end of the Civil War, for eventually to become today.

Furthermore, moral force and enlightened self-interest might work in a climate where there would be at least a modicum of fairness in the system to begin with. Black leaders knew that the climate in the Deep South did not include even a smidgen of fairness to their people, let alone a modicum. What chance does moral force and enlightened self-interest have when black people are systematically disenfranchised, the courts are prejudiced against them, the police are prejudiced against them, and white business people that buck the system are intimidated with fires, bombs and burning crosses?

Another price of prejudice is that when discrimination becomes so pervasive in a section of the country, it motivates groups to urge the Federal government to step in and take over. An example of the law of unintended consequences, the very thing that is brought in to protect the freedom and rights of people can eventually expand through initially benign actions to become a source of tyranny that oppresses people. Think about this year’s presidential election. Whether you oppose either or both major party presumptive candidates becoming President, is not one of your fears that this person will be in charge of such a powerful apparatus?

When it comes to the price of prejudice, cartoonist Walt Kelly described it well (even though he used it in different contexts) when he wrote, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. – Matthew 23:13

If God is perfect and all knowing; and the Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired instrument of his grace and peace. How can a contradiction in natural birth exist? How does the Transgender person of soul reconcile their spirit?

Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13-14:

For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.

Again, a respectful query on reconciliation. Thanks

Hello,

To respectfully seek answers, to reconcile ideas and people, to arrive at truth: these are all honorable aims. I am delighted to respond as best as God lays on my heart.

First, both for ourselves and any other readers, let’s make sure we understand what is meant by soul and spirit. I took the following from the BibleHub website. It is similar to what I found on some other sites as well as confirming my previous understanding.

[T]here is in man a spiritual, reasonable, and immortal soul, the seat of our thoughts, affections, and reasonings, which distinguishes us from the brute creation, and in which chiefly consists our resemblance to God, Genesis 1:26. This must be spiritual, because it thinks; it must be immortal, because it is spiritual. Scripture ascribes to man alone understanding, conscience, the knowledge of God, wisdom, immortality, and the hope of future everlasting happiness. It threatens men only with punishment in another life, and with the pains of hell. In some places the Bible seems to distinguish soul from spirit, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 [and] Hebrews 4:12: the organ of our sensations, appetites, and passions, allied to the body, form the nobler portion of our nature which most allies man to God. Yet we are to conceive of them as one indivisible and spiritual being, called also the mind and the heart, spoken of variously as living, feeling, understanding, reasoning, willing, etc. Its usual designation is the soul.

First, a quick explanation of 1st Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12. My sense is that the inclusion of both “soul” and “spirit” in these verses is meant as an amplification, not as distinguishing. We can see that more easily in the Hebrews verse. When the two-edged sword is described as dividing asunder soul and spirit, it means both, not dividing “soul from spirit”.

So the simple answer is that if humankind, while we walk this earth as corporeal creatures, are not spirit, but have an eternal soul that has a spiritual nature and therefore includes spirit, then the soul and spirit, even for a Transgender, must be reconciled with each other. Otherwise, you would be talking about some sort of split personality. No one I know of, not even our worst detractors, claims that about us.

But let’s look at a broader question of contradiction. Since God is all-knowing (there is no “if” about it) and the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God, then is there some contradiction between people who claim to be born transgender and God’s Word?

Let’s take Psalm 139:13-14 first, since that is an all-encompassing situation rather than a verse that applies to one particular person. I considered this passage so important to discuss that I wrote a three-part blog post on it in the first month of this blog back in November 2013. (The reader is reminded that I was using the older term, transsexual, at that time.)

I will provide a link back to those posts so the reader can have further details. But to summarize for the purpose of this answer, I point out how interesting it is that when these two verses are used as a proof text that transgender is not of God, verse 15 is never included to give the full context of these verses. It is quite inconvenient to their claims of contradiction to call to mind that every one of us, transgender and cisgender alike, was curiously formed in the lower parts of the earth.

When sin entered into the world, death and corruption entered in with it. So while the Lord God has final say over everyone how everyone is formed, no one is born perfectly whole and complete. The imperfections are not sin in and of themselves (think of the passage when Jesus’ disciples ask who sinned, the blind man or his parents). Furthermore, if someone had been born who was without spot or blemish, there would have been no reason for God to have sent His only begotten Son to shed His blood and nail our sins to the cross. Only Jesus, born of the Holy Spirit, could have been the perfect Passover lamb to save us, one perfect sacrifice for all time.

While we are in the Psalms, we ought not forget Psalm 51:5: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. It is another Biblical reminder of our humble origins.

That brings us to the Jeremiah verse that you cited. And guess what? I cited that same verse in Part 3 of my blog post series “I am Fearfully and Wonderfully Made”. Look closely at that verse again. God is not just telling Jeremiah that He formed him in the womb. He is also telling Jeremiah He knew what manner of person he would become. This means God knows Jeremiah on the inside: his heart, soul and spirit, not just his skin color, bone structure and yes genitalia.

Now here’s the question: based on which group of characteristics does God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet, the first group or the second? Obviously the first group. This is how God identifies Jeremiah as a person.

None of this is meant to say or imply that Jeremiah is transgender. What I am saying is that God’s primary identification of us is based on what’s inside, not on what’s outside; the spiritual and eternal, not the physical and temporal. Only a relatively small percentage of people are born transgender. But we have been around since the earliest days of recorded history. I’m not a scholar of ancient languages, but I’m told that the subject of transgender people was dealt with in the Code of Hammurabi. And my learned Jewish friends (as well as Christians who have researched this topic) tell me that in the rabbinical writings of Classical Judaism, there is provision for six genders, not two.

There is one thing that neither you or anyone else I have discussed the topic with has ever been able to produce: a Bible verse that states that the inner spirit of a person must match the outer anatomy when it comes to gender identity. I have been reading the Bible faithfully, daily most of the time, from cover to cover over and over again, for over 25 years. This was always an important topic for me. That verse would have leapt off the page for me. Those Christians who naysay transgender would be raising it as a banner. But they can’t because it doesn’t exist.

But is there scripture that suggests the opposite? I believe so. They are the very words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:12. Jesus describes three categories of eunuchs: those who were born that way, those who were made that way by someone else and those who made themselves eunuchs.

Now the lesson that Jesus is teaching to His disciples directly relates to the ability of a person to resist sexual temptation and therefore be able to remain single without falling into fornication (any sexual activity outside of marriage). But there are two things to keep in mind. First, that Bible teaching can have layers of meaning. Second, when Jesus taught in parables, He used examples and situations that the people of His day were familiar with. Therefore, even though scripture is eternal, Jesus never would have taught a parable that referred directly to computers or nuclear weapons.

Of the three categories, the most familiar would have been those who had been made eunuchs by someone else. Although the Jews did not practice it, it was a familiar practice for the rulers of the neighboring countries to castrate certain people, whether of their own nation or a defeated nation, for various purposes: watching over harems, becoming trusted advisors who would not be aggressive enough to become rivals, and so on. Since these eunuchs were neither born that way nor did so of their own volition, the most familiar category is of no further interest.

The less familiar two categories are where we draw our attention. Remember that Jesus and his disciples would have been familiar with the six genders of classical Judaism.

The person born a eunuch could be someone born with male anatomy but is impotent and acts more feminine upon reaching puberty. Such a person would likely be saris and would be considered male to female transgender today. Or it could be someone identified as female at birth who displays a masculine personality at puberty. That person would have been identified as ay’lonit in Jesus’s time and female to male today.

What of the person who makes “himself” a eunuch? Yes, that could be someone seeking to live a celibate life and needing to take extraordinary means to accomplish that purpose. It was not uncommon for men of the early Christian church to undergo castration to live a celibate life of service. However, a saris could also fit this description: someone assigned male at birth but who now lacks male genitalia, in this case voluntarily ridding themselves of unwanted body parts to live as in the preferred female gender.

It should be noted that Jesus does not speak disparagingly of any of these eunuchs. If He had reason to, He either would have used a different example or phrased the parable in a different way.

We have one more example relating to genitalia (in particular male genitalia) where the spiritual is more important than the physical. Deuteronomy 10:16 taught: Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Nor is this an isolated verse. We see this theme repeated in Leviticus 26:41, Deuteronomy 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:4. And that devout scripture student, the Apostle Paul, picks up this theme in Romans 2:28-29 and Colossians 2:11. These teachings have import far beyond transgender. It permits Jewish women to stand before the cross of Christ and the Throne of Grace on equal footing with Jewish men. And it permits physically uncircumcised Gentiles to do the same. Indeed, this was one of the first debates in the young Christian church when evidence of the Holy Spirit’s anointing of Gentiles was first reported. Would these Gentile men be required to undergo circumcision? It was eventually deemed unnecessary. God had already circumcised their hearts.

Apparently we haven’t come very far in 2000 years. People are still focusing on the less important physical attributes, willing to limit ourselves to what we can see. As God truly observed in 1st Samuel 16:7, man judges by the outer appearance, but God judges by the inner things of the heart. Are we not called upon to grow in spiritual maturity so that we see things as God sees them?

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. – Romans 2:28-29

So this is the new rallying cry, is it? “No men in women’s bathrooms.”

Well I happen to agree. A man has no right in a public women’s bathroom. What I disagree on is their definition of man and woman, male and female.

It continues to sadden me that certain segments of the Christian population are spearheading this attack on the safety of transgender people. But what saddens me particularly today is the blatant disregard for truth by these Christians. Love of the truth should be one of the hallmarks of a Christian.

The word “truth” occurs 117 times in the Old Testament and 118 times in the considerably shorter New Testament. It is a major theme in the Gospel of John and John’s epistles.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. – John 1:17

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. – John 8:32

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. – John 14:6

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. – John 14:17

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. – John 17:17

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. – 1st John 2:21

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. – 1st John 3:18-19

John was not the only New Testament writer to deal with truth. Here are some verses from Paul’s epistles.

[Charity] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; – 1st Corinthians 13:6

But [we] have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. – 2nd Corinthians 4:2

For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. – 2nd Corinthians 13:8

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. – Ephesians 4:25

(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) – Ephesians 5:9

And still more verses from the New Testament:

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. – James 1:18

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. – James 3:14

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: – 1st Peter 1:22

Now what truth does this segment of Christianity ignore, deny and dispute?

They dispute our personal testimony. Even with conservative estimates of the frequency of transgenderism, hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and millions around the world claim that this is our story, our experience, our reality. It is the testimony of little children whose lives are improved when they are allowed to live in their true gender identity. It is the testimony of people of my generation, baby boomers, who tried to repress and deny the truth about ourselves even more than our opponents do. But our identities persisted despite everything we did. It is the testimony of many fine, upstanding citizens and many whose potential is untapped because of discrimination. It is the testimony of Christians like me who have and continue to proclaim Christ, tenaciously holding onto our faith in the face of every attack we have received from those who claim to speak for the church and for Christ.

The ignore the danger that transgender people face every day because of bigotry and hatred against us. They ignore the horrific murder rate against transgender people, a rate that is most likely even higher than reported in a world where many murders are reported with the transgender identity of the victim hidden behind rejected name and gender; where there are many countries (e.g. Russia and China) where our very existence is denied. They ignore the even greater danger we would face if forced to use spaces based on our gender assigned at birth rather than our true gender.

They outright lie about transgender people being a danger. Earlier this month, a sheriff with 41 years of law enforcement experience unequivocally gave testimony to the legislature of his state that he has “never heard of a transgender person attacking or otherwise bothering someone in a restroom. This is a non-issue.” This is not a sheriff in the liberal Northeast or California. This is Leon Lott, Richland County (SC) Sheriff since 1996. His county includes the state capital, Columbia, so he serves in a populated area. In addition, any law enforcement official at his level is going to keep up-to-date on crime trends and issues outside of his own area, especially once the issue rises to the be on the front burner in his state and around the country. The plain truth is that of the jurisdictions that have passed laws protecting the right of transgender people to use bathrooms consistent with their innate gender, laws that have been in place for many years in some cases, there have been ZERO problems. In addition, when transgender people are in public, we have to use restrooms. So even in locales where such protections don’t exist, we fearfully use the restroom that corresponds to our identity. Again there have been ZERO problems.

They dispute the preponderance of learned opinion of the medical community, in the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. They were very willing to accept their findings decades ago when these groups had little to go on in the way of research and real life experience. But with nearly three full generations of evidence at hand (and more being gathered), these respected organizations have updated their opinions and protocols based on the enlightenment gathered from their findings. Somehow in our opponents mind, without evidence, this is all a plot. Instead, they lean on discredited studies, discredited psychiatrists, rogue organizations and misrepresentation of valid studies. (I’m old enough to have lived through this before. I can remember when rock ‘n roll was supposedly a communist plot.)

They often lie and hide their true motive for waging this battle. But not always. With a debate version of three-card monte, they deftly shift from reason to reason behind their legislation and umbrage. When the moral/Biblical argument is rejected, they shift to the need to protect women as the purpose. When that argument is countered, then it becomes a matter of a right to privacy: balancing the rights of transgender people against that of cisgender women.

As far as the moral/Biblical argument, I will touch upon that in the next bullet point. As far as the protection argument, I have already shown that to be a canard. But I will take it one step further. There is a group known to be a danger primarily to women and children. They are the people on the sex offender list. Where is their hue and cry about such people being allowed to use public bathrooms? And as far as transgender protection laws opening the door for perverts to take advantage of it (recently parroted by Curt Schilling, among others), not only doesn’t it happen, they (many of whom are staunch 2nd Amendment defenders) would never apply the same rationale to strict gun control measures just because a small minority of people in our society actually do carry out horrific violence using firearms.

As far as the privacy argument, the only bathrooms I have ever seen where the stalls had no doors was in men’s locker rooms. (I hated them. I avoided using them whenever I could.) A naked cisgender woman in a public women’s bathroom would likely receive a negative response unless it was a clear case of a medical problem. I have never seen someone in a public bathroom whose genitals were in plain sight unless they were on the changing table. In spaces where nudity is more likely to be involved, the topic is more sensitive. (I never totally disrobe when I go to my gym, and there are private changing stalls if I ever would need to.) But even here, social custom is changing for reasons other than transgender. When I went to my 40th college reunion two years ago (Cornell), the dorm where my class was housed is a coed dorm. Most of the student rooms do not have private bathrooms. The common bathrooms (including showers) are also coed. This is a growing trend according to what I have read.

They distort or err on what the Bible says on the topic of transgender. I have written many blog posts countering their arguments (in conjunction with all the medical evidence that has been gathered on the nature of transgenderism). The short version is that very little can be found in the Bible on the topic and the term is not found in the Holy Scriptures. Of course, there are many modern terms (e.g. democracy and republic) that are not found there, either. The closest we can come is when Jesus describes three types of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12. The person who is born a eunuch could describe a number of situations, including someone who is transgender. Most importantly, Jesus does not condemn any of the three examples, consistent with many instances in which the new and better covenant is more inclusive than the old. And as to whether God defines us by our mind/spirit or our body parts, I have shown by many verses the preponderance of evidence that He identifies us by our mind/spirit.

Please understand that this is not a transgender vs Christianity issue, nor should it be. I and a number of friends are evidence that a person can be both. And I have many devout conservative Christians in my life who are accepting and supportive.

I know full well that there are a number of topics on which Christians are in disagreement. And there is always room for honest disagreement. But what hurts the most is the vitriol directed by this segment of the Christian population at the transgender community. And even if Christianity has come under attack from some segments of the transgender community (and I will not descend into a “who started it” black hole), Christians are not supposed to return evil for evil. We are called to a higher purpose.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. – 1st Corinthians 10:32-33

When you read the many verses earlier in my post, you may have noticed a connection between truth and a loving attitude. (If not, look again.) Even if the segment of Christians who I have called out in this post earnestly believe what they are preaching about transgender people, all Christians are admonished to be “… speaking the truth in love …” (Ephesians 4:15).

I enjoy a good love story. I’m talking romance, not necessarily sex. Perhaps I love them even more after all these years because I haven’t known much romance in my life. I’m a romantic person who had very little opportunity to express that side of me, in either gender role.

The Bible has a number of beautiful love stories. Some of them also had a bit of tarnish on them. The love that Jacob had for Rachel is both beautiful and tarnished.

The eldest servant of Abraham, Jacob’s grandfather, was sent to Padanaram to find a wife for Jacob’s father, Isaac. That wife, Rebecca, would favor Jacob over his twin brother, Esau (the elder brother by a matter of a few moments). It was Rebecca who also suggested that Jacob personally go to Padanaram to find his own wife. The journey would also help Jacob escape the wrath of Esau, the one that he cheated out of a birthright and the best blessing.

It was quite a journey for Jacob, a man heretofore content to stay in the camp and dwell in tents. Most significant of all, he has a direct encounter with the Lord at Bethel and vows that if the Lord takes care of him on this journey, the Lord will be Jacob’s God.

This sets the stage for Jacob to arrive at the land of his grandfather’s people. And when he arrives, the first woman he lays eyes upon his Rachel, not unlike Abraham’s servant encountering Rebecca as the first woman he approaches. And both encounters take place at sources of water, a most precious commodity to the sheep ranchers of the Middle East.

At this time in her life, Rachel is the keeper of her family’s flock, a shepherdess. As she approaches the well, Jacob is conversing with the men about the proper procedures of sheep (cattle) ranching.

And he said, Lo, it is yet high day, neither is it time that the cattle should be gathered together: water ye the sheep, and go and feed them. And they said, We cannot, until all the flocks be gathered together, and till they roll the stone from the well’s mouth; then we water the sheep. – Genesis 29:7-8

Notice that the men of that place are not rolling away the stone. They are waiting for “they” to do it for them.

But when Rachel arrives with her flocks, Jacob himself rolls away the stone from the well and waters the sheep. (This is the reverse of the encounter between Abraham’s servant and Rebecca. At that time, Rebecca gave the servant a drink and also watered the servant’s camels.)

Having impressed Rachel with his gallant gesture, Jacob goes to Rachel and kisses her. (Okay, I’m enhancing the text here a bit, romantic that I am. But he did kiss her.) Then he identifies himself as family.

This is where the love story of Jacob and Rachel begins. And here is where it quickly gets sullied. Jacob’s Uncle Laban, father of Rachel, gets involved. Perhaps Laban has gotten wilier in his older years. Perhaps he realizes he is dealing this time with a suitor, not a servant. Perhaps both. But it soon becomes clear that Jacob, the conniver and supplanter, is from the same gene pool as Laban. However, Laban is more experienced and Jacob at first appears to have met his match.

Jacob’s bargaining skills are blinded by the stars in his eyes for Rachel. He agrees to work for seven years for Laban to obtain Rachel’s hand in marriage. And Jacob’s love for Rachel is so strong that seven years seem like only a few days for him. Ladies, could a suitor be any more devoted than that?

Here’s where Laban gets the better of Jacob. Apparently there was no formal wedding ceremony in those days where the bride and groom stood together before someone to marry them. As a wealthy man and father of the bride, Laban has a feast and then delivers the bride to the groom for their wedding night. But lo and behold, when Jacob awakes the next morning, it is Rachel’s older sister, Leah, next to him. Laban wants to marry off his oldest daughter first, and he tricks Jacob to do so.

Jacob works seven more years for Rachel, although this time Laban doesn’t make Jacob wait more than a week. Apparently Leah was entitled to a conjugal week.

Now we have the advantage of hindsight to know how the story turns out. After another seven years, Jacob wants to take his growing family and return to his home in Canaan. This time Laban is in the position of desperate bargainer. For fourteen years, he has seen how the Lord has blessed whatever Jacob does. He doesn’t want to lose Jacob and that blessing on his ranching operation. So now Jacob can name his price. And at first it looks like Jacob is a poor negotiator once again. But it gives Jacob the opportunity to fleece Laban this time. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun.) And soon, Jacob has accumulated great and healthy flocks of his own to go back home with. And when he sees that Laban and his sons are starting to turn against him, Jacob decides that it is time to get out of Dodge.

Through all these machinations, Jacob eventually fathers the twelve sons who become heads of the tribes of Israel. And on the way back to meet up with Esau once again, Jacob has another encounter with the Lord (a wrestling match this time: how many people would be more afraid of their brother than the creator of all things?) that leads to him being given the name by which the nation would be known: Israel. Regardless of why God chose to have things happen this way, they happened.

It was by Leah that Levi was born, becoming the tribe of priests. Leah’s fourth son, Judah, named for her praise of the Lord, would become the ruling tribe. When peace finally comes, all the people shall be gathered unto him.

It was by Rachel that Joseph was born. He was the one who emerged from prison to save his people and forgive his brothers.

Almost all the pieces of the picture, the foreshadows, are present in this fascinating, imperfect love story. But it never comes to full fruition, never comes together in one person: not until Jesus, the lion of Judah, the son of David, the Prince of Peace, Emmanuel, the Alpha and the Omega from everlasting to everlasting.

Jesus is the Passover lamb, the perfect lamb without spot or blemish, whose sacrifice once forever saves the people from their sins. But He is also the Good Shepherd. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

Jesus is the priest after the order of Melchizedek, without beginning or end. But He also sits at the right hand of God the father. The scepter never departs from His hand and He shall be the righteous judge of all.

Jacob, in fathering twelve sons, was in a sense the creator of the nation. He is another picture that points to Jesus:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. – Colossians 1:16-17

In addition to being the sheep, the shepherd (Rachel), the priest (Levi), the ruler (Judah), the savior (Joseph) who also preached to the spirits in prison (1st Peter 3:19), the sacrificial love (Jacob for Rachel) that gave His life for us while we were yet sinners and at enmity with God, the way to the Father (Bethel) and the creator (Jacob/Israel), Jesus is also the life-giving water in the story. Jesus is the living water: those who drink of Him shall never thirst. Water is also an image associated with the Word of God. Jesus is the word made flesh to have free course: those who partake of it will never hunger.

Furthermore, Jesus is the light who has come into the world. Whether as the pillar of fire by night or in the burning bush (for example), it was always God who brought the light to the scene. This is also true figuratively, as when God enlightened Joseph with the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams. Nothing physical in the story of Jacob, Rachel and the children of Israel could be a foreshadowing of the light that illuminates the darkness.

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. – Isaiah 9:2,6-7

In order for there to be the victory of Easter, there had to be the hope that was born of Christmas.

When Jesus hung on the cross of Calvary, the sun was darkened. Earthquakes tore the veil of the temple in two and opened the ground, including graves that saw their occupants come to life. A couple of days later, another earthquake rolled the stone away. No person had to do so this time.

As dawn’s light filled the sky on that Resurrection Sunday, so too did the Gospel message have valid proof. “An empty grave is there to prove my Savior lives.”

The stone has been rolled away. It is time to water the sheep. It will be time to water the sheep until Jesus returns. As Christians, we are to be the clay pots to carry the water to the troughs. Whatever else our lot in life may be, this is our first responsibility, our great commission.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. – Mark 16:15

Now this might sound all well and good. Yet some might ask, “What about theological issues? What does God have to say about this? What does the Bible say?”

The detailed answer is another book, not a letter. But I am not dodging the question. I deal with these sorts of questions on this blog (started in November 2013). I would always welcome a discussion on these topics, whether one on one or with a group, Bibles open. Based on growing evidence that I and many others like me were born this way (this is not a choice), combined with the many verses that show how God identifies people and how we were formed before we were born, I feel more strongly about this now than I did in November 2012. I still uncover other verses from time to time that support this viewpoint. Since you found this letter on my blog, you will find other blog posts where I expound on this topic. Look for the page “Key Bible Verses”, or blog posts under the category “The Bible on Transsexualism”.

I said that I would get back to Pastor, and this is the appropriate point in the letter. I will not mislead you by letting you think that he endorses my opinion in these matters. We have not discussed this topic recently, so he should be the one to weigh in on where he stands at this time. But one of his best qualities (and why you are so blessed to have him as your pastor) is his transparency. My understanding is that his willingness to continue to fellowship with me is based on the following: that Christians are called to love one another; that he considers the totality of what he knows about me and my Christian walk, not just one item, albeit a significant one; his awareness that just as I am not perfect, he is not perfect; his awareness that while he believes his position to be right, that he is not inerrant. And if I have misspoken on any of these or omitted anything, I trust that Pastor will make the necessary corrections.

When I met with Pastor and his wife in January 2012 to inform them of this development in my life and to ask for counseling (which eventually was handled solely by Pastor), he admitted that he did not have a theological knowledge of the topic. He did what he needed to do to get up to speed and I talked to someone he recommended that I talk to. Most importantly, our prayer of agreement was that God’s will for my life be revealed.

With the guidance of the Holy Spirit and affirmation from many (but not all) people: strangers, family members, friends, clients and best of all, solid, conservative Christians, I believe that His will for my life is being revealed. And I believe that I am living that will as best I can, especially in this matter.

New people in my life who I have not told accept me as female and most of the people who I have told accept me as female. Some people who have known me for a long time tell me that “if they didn’t know, they wouldn’t know”. People who have met me recently tell me that they find it hard to believe that I was ever anything except female. Even a number of people who met me for the first time during my last year at CBC are now telling me that they have only thought of me as female. And I was wearing male clothes when I met them.

There are two minor areas of disagreement that I had with Pastor. I am sharing them with you to show how my understanding continues to progress.

One was when I made a statement that there was no verse or combination of verses in the Bible to back a certain point of view (I am pretty sure it was on whether we are born with gender identity and genitalia that always match). Pastor’s reply was to the effect that there are some things that are so universally accepted that they do not need to be included. I let his point stand at the time. Later on, I realized that such a belief does not agree with the evangelical Christian position that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God. If anyone should go to the Bible with any question, and if an answer cannot be found whether by direct statement, induction or deduction from the entire word of God, then the Bible has failed on that point. But it cannot fail and be infallible at the same time.

The other was when we exchanging positions and points of view based on scripture. I would say something from the Bible. Then Pastor would answer it from the Bible. Then I would answer it with something else from the Bible. It was a lively, respectful and friendly discussion, sometimes continuing for a couple of counseling sessions. Finally Pastor threw in the towel (still in good humor) and said that I was smart enough that no matter what he told me, I would always find a way to counter it with something else from the Bible. I also let that stand. But later on, in correspondence with another Christian, a similar remark was made. However, it was not in good humor. And that got me to thinking about the implication of that statement. And it wasn’t long before I rejected it. No matter how smart I am, God is a whole lot smarter than me. There’s no comparison. Now if God finds me in error on this topic, wouldn’t He be able to come up with verses and an explanation that I wouldn’t be able to counter? And wouldn’t a God who has spoken through a donkey and heathen kings be able to speak through a godly Christian pastor or another dedicated servant of the Lord?

More important, Pastor’s continued and steadfast friendship has been highly prized by me. He has always treated me appropriately, in accord with my presentation. He is genuine. He values me as a person and as a Christian. He takes time for my concerns when he derives no tangible benefit from doing so. It is hard enough to find those qualities in anyone, let alone someone who disagrees on such a significant issue.

Now that I know that my transition is no longer secret, I would recommend CBC to anyone in the area. Of course, I would recommend my own church as well!

I will close this by leaving you with two sayings that I have lived by since I started to come out and then a final wrap up.

If I want to be understood, I need to be understanding.

If it took me fifty years to deal with this, I can’t expect you to understand this in fifty minutes.

Yes, my presentation (my clothing, voice and mannerisms) has changed somewhat. I am somewhat freer with my emotions and in worship. I cherish the more open friendships that I have with some women now that a glass wall has been removed. I enjoy the private smiles that I receive from other women when we pass by each other with that quiet acknowledgement of our shared sisterhood. But for the most part, I haven’t changed that much. I can still do math, I can still parallel park, I still have a great sense of direction, I still have the same crazy sense of humor, I still like sports and I still love the Lord.

If anyone would like to contact me or meet with me, I would be delighted. If I was ever invited to speak or attend a function at CBC, I would be honored.

Please know that you are prayed for often, loved always and missed very much.

That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed. Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. – Romans 15:32-33

The following passages have been added to the key Bible verse page of my blog:

Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. – Isaiah 56:3-5

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. – Romans 8:29

I sometimes hear negative comments about Christians who interpret the Bible literally. My reply takes them by surprise at first until I explain. The problem is not belief that the Bible is literally true. It’s that those Christians who disparage the transgender community don’t read the Bible carefully enough and apply all of it as it is written.

Jesus never rebuked anyone for using too much scripture or taking it literally. He did accuse the Sadducees of not knowing the scriptures (or the power of God) when they asked Him about the woman who was widowed in succession by each one of seven brothers (Matthew 22:23-32). He challenged the Jewish leadership by comparing scripture verses that would point to His identity as the Son of God (e.g. that the Messiah is the Son of David, but David calls Him Lord: Matthew 22:42-45 referring to Psalm 110). He accuses the scribes and Pharisees of hypocrisy for being preoccupied with minutiae and ignoring more important matters: judgment, mercy and faith (Matthew 23, especially verses 23 and 24).

He accused them of ignoring the judgment of the prophet Hosea on their forefathers: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. – Hosea 6:6. He accused them of not understanding the message in the story of David and his starving soldiers when the priests fed them the hallowed showbread that only the priests were permitted to eat under the Law. (1st Samuel 21:1-6; Jesus’ teaching reported in Matthew 12, Mark 2 and Luke 6).

Jesus was grieved that the religious leaders in His time did not understand that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: that His disciples did not deserve condemnation for plucking and eating a few grains from stalks in the field on the Sabbath; nor did He deserve condemnation for doing good works on the Sabbath, such as His healing of the sick or infirmed and casting out demons (often by only speaking a word and using no physical activity at all). Most grievous of all was the fact that the ministry and messianic identity of Jesus was confirmed by far greater miracles than displayed by Elijah and Elisha. Yet the scribes, Pharisees and teachers of the Law, who venerated those prophets from centuries earlier, did not accept the message of Jesus for the sake of His good works.

What if legalism had stopped Boaz from marrying a foreign woman? Then he would have never married Ruth, the Moabitess, the great-grandmother of King David. Fortunately, the testimony about Ruth, her goodness towards her mother-in-law, her love of God and her faith and trust in the Lord, was more important to Boaz.

What if legalism had stopped the two men sent by Joshua to spy on Jericho from lodging with a prostitute. Then those men would not have received protection from Rahab, they would have been captured by the people of that land and another generation of the children of Israel probably would have been discouraged from entering the Promised Land. Fortunately for the Israelites, those two men were more concerned with their mission, and they also believed it when Rahab testified her belief that the God of Israel is the only God in heaven and earth. Both the faith (Hebrews 11:31) and works (James 2:25) of this common harlot are praised in the New Testament.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. – John 1:17. Human nature makes it difficult to have both grace and truth in our hearts. We tend to tilt towards one or the other since at first glance they seem incompatible. But what is impossible for man is made possible by God. So our Christian walk requires us to do what God enables us to do: that we so walk as to keep the two in balance at all times. For if we heavily emphasize grace, the result is silly sentimentality and an attitude that anything goes. But if we heavily emphasize truth, the result is dead orthodoxy and loveless legalism, driving away people from God by beating them over the head with scripture.

But don’t ever think that grace is weaker than truth. (Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. – 2nd Timothy 2:1.) Now that’s even stronger than Ajax!

So why do I call legalism ”lazy religion”? Because it is much easier to justify one’s position by pointing to cold, hard facts in scripture, especially the “thou shalt not(s)”. It takes more work to temper truth with grace, to practice speaking grace seasoned with salt instead of the other way around, and to understand the spirit of the law in addition to the letter of the law.

Those Christians who pursue legalism and the letter of the law need to heed these verses:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. – Romans 2:29 (In the same chapter, Paul warns the Church to leave condemning judgment to God because we will all be judged by Him.)

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. – Romans 7:6

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. – 2nd Corinthians 3:6

That sure grabs my attention. I can minister life to people by the spirit of the law, but death to people by the letter. Why would I want to minister death to people? Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it (John 3:17). He came so that we would not only have life, but abundant life. (John 10:10)

In my Christian walk, I have the same choice that God told Moses to proclaim to the children of Israel: I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: – Deuteronomy 30:19

Therefore, it is a joy when I find another scripture passage that illuminates both the letter and spirit of the word; both the grace and truth of Christ: especially as relates to God’s mercy towards those people who are transgender; those of us who were born that way.

I recently came across some passages in Acts (which I have read dozens of times) during the Women’s Bible Study that I attend at my church. The topic was the importance of evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the first Gentile converts so that they would be welcomed into the body of Christ. It starts in Acts 10 when the Lord sent visions to the centurion Cornelius and the Apostle Peter to bring them together. Peter was the one who needed convincing. Had he been stuck in legalism, he would have refused to go to the house of a Gentile (Acts 10:28). But once there, Peter preached the Gospel to Cornelius, his family and close friends who eagerly desired to hear about God. And to the surprise of the Jewish followers of Christ who accompanied Peter, they saw strong evidence of the Holy Spirit being poured out on those who had gathered to hear Peter, similar to what had happened a decade earlier at Pentecost to Christ’s disciples.

But that didn’t end the matter. Now Peter had to go back to Jerusalem and defend his actions to those who want to know why he visited these Gentiles (and even ate with them!) contrary to the Law. Fortunately, Peter was able to recount the whole story and convinced those who originally opposed what he had done that they would also be opposing God if they did not accept that the Lord had chosen Gentiles to be part of the body of believers in Christ.

Then people like Paul and Barnabas journeyed to preach the Gospel in the synagogues in more distant cities where Jews have settled and also to the Gentiles there. From both groups, some believed and some did not. And with these new Christians, both Jew and Gentile, new churches were planted.

But as reported in Acts 15, a new dispute arose. Some legalistic Jewish Christians (mostly Pharisees) came behind the evangelistic work being done and told the new Gentile believers that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised according to Mosaic Law. So now the early Church had to deal with legalism in relation to the Gentiles once again. Those who were bound in the dead letter of the law instead of the living spirit of the law refused to believe that these Gentiles were already saved.

So now a new meeting of the early Church leaders was convened. From the Bible’s “minutes” of that meeting:

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. – Acts 15:7-11

The bottom line is that because of the words of Peter, Barnabas, Paul and James, it was recognized that circumcision was not required for a Gentile to be considered saved and part of the Church. They realized that they were requiring something (circumcision as adults) that they would not have been able to handle themselves. They saw that the presence of the Holy Spirit in a person was what counted, not the particulars of their body. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. – Galatians 5:6

But if legalists had their way, Gentiles would have been barred from becoming part of the Church; at the very least, they would have been required to be circumcised and even then they still might have been made to remain separated from the Jewish Christians. This is very similar to how legalist preachers, misinterpreting scripture, tried to justify the continuance of enslaving Blacks. Fortunately, they also did not prevail; nor did those who tried to justify segregation of the races in all walks of life. And yet, many Christians today, almost all of whom would be considered Gentiles (and more than a few of whom are Black), misuse scripture and ignore mounting evidence, thereby forbidding transgender people the right to be something that they could not bear: denying their own identity.

Can someone get a nose job, or breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, or a cleft palate repaired and still be saved? Yes! Can someone take hormones to treat menopause or prostate cancer and still be saved? Yes! Can someone have gender confirming surgery or take hormones to treat transgender issues and still be saved? Yes! It’s what’s in your heart, your mind and your spirit that matters, not your flesh. And if it applies to one’s standing as a Christian, it certainly applies to one’s standing in the human race.

Those of us in the transgender community might think that we have enough arguments against us to debunk. However many years ago, a career counselor taught me the value of trying to prove others right. If proven, you gain truth, understanding and agreement. If the proof fails, your position has added validity as one obtained by an impartial observer. So hopefully I have brought my A game to this post (besides the alliteration in the title).

It is of utmost importance to me that my actions and beliefs are consistent with the Bible. It is my daily prayer that the Lord give my understanding of what I will read that day, whether to refresh what He has already taught me, to correct what I have learned in error or to add to my knowledge of the Word of God.

For the first time in a few years, I was given pause about my position on transgender by something in my daily reading. And so in the spirit of gaining truth and understanding, I looked into it further and meditated upon it.

Noah Found Grace in the Eyes of the Lord; as in Genesis 6:8; illustration from Sunrays Quarterly (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A couple of days ago, I began reading Genesis as my daily devotional reading. On back to back days, I read the creation account and the account of Noah up to the point that the floodwaters began to cover the earth. What immediately struck me that I had never picked up on before was the return to the phrase “male and female” that we find in Genesis 1:27. In Genesis 5:1-2, we return once again to a quick summary of the creation account’s description of the origin of the human race. We are reminded that God created us in His likeness, and that He created us male and female. The same Hebrew words for male and female are used in both chapters of Genesis. While Genesis 4 deals with the descendants of Adam through the murderous Cain, Genesis 5 begins the genealogy of the descendants of Adam through Seth. It is this genealogy that will lead to Noah, and thereby to all descendants of the human race. For it is only Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives, 8 people in all, who will be the human survivors of the flood.

In chapter 6 starting with verse 14, God begins to instruct Noah on what he is to do to preserve the human race, the land animals and the flying animals. And after the instructions on the building of the ark, in verse 19 God begins to tell Noah about bringing representatives of the land animals and flying animals into the ark with Noah and his seven family members. From that verse until the floodwaters lift the ark off the ground (Genesis 7:17), the phrase “male and female” is mentioned six times. When God repeats something even once, it is meant to get our attention. Six times certainly grabbed my attention.

However, a curious thing occurs when we look closer. While it is the same phrase in English, in two of the six times, different Hebrew words are used than we find in Genesis 1 & 5. The words used for male and female most often are “zakar” and “neqebah”. These are very generic words for male and female, whether applied to humans or animals. But the words used the other two times, “iysh” and “ishshah” have shades of meaning not found in the more generic words. While they are also properly translated as male and female, according to my research, this is the only two times they are translated that way in the KJV. More often, they are translated as man and woman, or even more specifically, husband and wife.

Where are the more specific Hebrew words used? Only in Genesis 7:2, to describe the seven pairs of clean beasts (i.e. land animals) and the one pair of unclean beasts that are to be brought into the ark. (In Genesis 7:2-3, God expands upon the more general instructions that were given to Noah in 6:19.)

National Audubon Society (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is not clear why God uses the more generic term in 7:3 to refer to the seven pairs of flying creatures that are to be brought upon the ark. After all, the more specific term evokes the sense of mates. There are birds that mate for life. According to the Audubon Society, these include the Bald Eagle, the Laysan Albatross, the Scarlet Macaw, the Whooping Crane, the Atlantic Puffin and the Black Vulture. Surely God knows His own creation, including these facts. Regardless, He has made his point: the creatures to be brought on the ark are intended to mate once the floodwaters have receded and they can be released. Indeed, there is no other reason to bring them aboard.

In other words, the animals chosen are not necessarily representative samples. They are ideal members of their kind, just as Noah and his family were ideal contrasts to the rest of the human race at that point in history. Also, it is important to note that it was God, not Noah, who did the choosing. Genesis 6:20 makes it clear that Noah does not have to search the globe for the animals. Those of every kind will come to him. God guided those of His choosing to make their way to Noah and submit to his dominion.

We also get an idea of how ideal the choice is when we remember that God chose four specific male and female pairs of humans from one family to survive the worldwide flood and prolong the human race. This was by no means a representative sample of the population.

How large would a representative sample be? We might think that the difficulty in estimating the population of the world in Noah’s day would make it difficult to calculate such a thing. Not so, according to market research advisers at checkmarket.com. Once your sample size exceeds 20,000, the size of a representative sample does not increase very much. In fact, the sample size didn’t increase at all between 500 thousand and 1 million people. Even at the generally minimum confidence level of 95% and margin of error of 5% and rounding up to nearest hundred (as they recommend), with a population size of at least 10,000 people, the representative sample size would be 400. Even the most conservative estimates of population in Noah’s day put the world population at over 15 million people. (Note: These estimates are from scientists that do not necessarily believe in the Biblical account and/or a young Earth viewpoint.) So we have no problem using 400 as our representative sample size. This is 50 times larger than the number of humans chosen by God to continue the human race. It is clearly not a representative sample.

Okay, so how does this relate to gender issues? In this way: if we know that God deliberately chose certain representatives of the human race and of each kind of creature, then we cannot say use the term “male and female” in the worldwide flood account to make a claim that such terms exclusively apply to those people who are able to reproduce. Indeed, if the choice had been left up to Noah, he would have had no way to distinguish between animals able to reproduce and those unable to, regardless of the reason why. In fact, there are some land animals where it is difficult to even tell between male and female (the hyena, for one).

God had to choose specific animals because Noah’s random choices would have likely resulted in at least some infertile animals being chosen, animals that would still be correctly classified as either male or female. In fact, Noah’s choices may have been skewed towards the slower and weaker (i.e. not so random) which would have a greater likelihood of being infertile.

Also, we have no proof that Noah and his wife were still able to reproduce. There is no record of them having any more children. And Genesis 9:19 states that the repopulation of the earth came only from Noah’s three sons. Indeed, the same analysis that applies to Genesis 1:27 applies to Genesis 6 and 7 regarding male and female. There are a number of reasons by which males and females are infertile: age, injury, illness and congenital conditions to name those that quickly come to mind. These do not make them any less male or female, whichever applies.

Nor does having an innate gender identity that is incongruent with our anatomy make us any less male or female, whichever applies. This is the conclusion of this exercise. This is what we see over and over, looked at from all angles, both Biblical and secular.

Prior to Genesis, I was reading in Isaiah. As one unable to bear children, I was comforted by these words in Isaiah 54, verses 1-10. But it is only now that I have written this blog post that I have noticed that Noah and the flood were included in the passage. The Holy Spirit has a remarkable way of making these things happen.

Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee.

That old joke sounded clever the first couple of times I heard it. And this isn’t the first time that I’ve repeated it. Yet God’s people must not be indifferent about ignorance. God speaks this warning through the prophet Hosea: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. – Hosea 4:6

In the Bible, God counsels us to obtain knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Knowledge can simply be gathered. But without the ability to apply it, knowledge isn’t of much use. That is where understanding comes in. Understanding combines knowledge with an ability to judge and comprehend the subject matter at hand. Wisdom is the possession of a superior level of understanding, the ability to consistently use good sense and judgment.

Here’s an example from my scholastic days. I generally did well in high school, but most of my best subjects were in math and science. At that time, my career goal was in the area of urban planning and transportation engineering. So I made an investment in an expensive must-have reference book: The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with this massive volume, it has the dimensions of a large dictionary, is about 3 inches thick, printed on thin paper. This book is jammed with 2076 pages of formulas, tables, constants, charts, and other facts.

Here is where understanding comes into the picture. Even with my science background, as I thumbed through the book at random today, I came upon many items that I never learned or understood. There are also a number of items that I recognize but have forgotten how to use them. Therefore, large sections of the information in this book are useless knowledge to me at this time.

Furthermore, the edition I own is the 49th edition. The latest edition is the 95th. There are now over 2600 pages of information, and that is after many of the mathematical tables have been removed since they are now readily available with a computer or calculator. As scientific knowledge multiplies, the editors of the Handbook have to constantly evaluate what should be added and what is no longer essential.

Of course, new discoveries also mean that some items that were listed 45 years ago have been clarified or corrected. Some of the material in my edition is no longer reliable. It is out of date. One example of interest to some readers of this blog is related to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic compound with estrogenic properties which a number of male to female transsexuals have learned that their mothers’ took while pregnant with them. DES is still listed as a treatment for prostate cancer. A more effective pharmaceutical treatment without estrogenic properties replaced DES in common use for prostate cancer in 1985. While DES use during pregnancy was not mentioned in the Handbook, it was not banned until two years after my edition was published. It is no longer manufactured or marketed in the United States since 1997.

No person can know everything. Only God is all-knowing. But collectively, within the body of Christ, it is incumbent upon us to remain aware of the latest additions to the wealth of knowledge in the world’s possession. This means awareness of what are hypotheses, what are theories, what are measured results, and what results have been reproduced and confirmed elsewhere. If that which is proven fact conflicts with man’s interpretation of God’s word, then we must reexamine the interpretation, comparing Scripture with Scripture, until we arrive at an interpretation and understanding that conforms to scientific fact.

This is what is so disturbing about some within the body of Christ, who ignore the proliferation of studies and case studies that demonstrate that the concepts of male and female (both physically and mentally) cannot be put into neat and separate little boxes and that there is a growing amount of evidence of a physical component to an incongruent gender identity; at the same time ignoring the personal testimony of the effort made by transsexual Christians to conform their gender identity to their physical appearance, through prayer and study of the Bible and exercise of faith, only to see our need to live authentically grow stronger and stronger. This is what is so disturbing about being rebuked for relying on science by a brother in Christ and former friend, who ironically has a Ph.D. in a scientific field and by profession (before his recent retirement) designed clinical studies for a major pharmaceutical company.

The war between Christianity and science is a canard whose origins were perpetrated in the 1800’s to discredit Christianity. Yet the story took root and has been repeated so often, it is now considered common knowledge by Christians and the secular world alike. Academic research relying on original sources to debunk this outrageous lie has been ignored for nearly 20 years. Shame on any Christians who have bought into a fraud that was meant to falsely accuse us and embarrass us.

We can get in trouble when we are sloppy in our knowledge of Scripture. In this case, we need to remember that Paul did not warn Timothy (and all people) against all use of science; he warned against “science falsely so called”. (1st Timothy 6:20) We can also look at the example of Daniel, one of the most faithful and obedient of God’s servants despite living in captivity in Babylon, as well as his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (who many are more familiar under the names Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego). These four were among the children of Israel chosen for training by Nebuchadnezzar’s servant, Ashpenaz, based in part on being “skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science”. (Daniel 1:4) When these four are eventually set apart from all the others, we learn that it was God who “gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom”. (Daniel 1:17) Who are we to go against God?

Apparently there was junk science in Paul’s day and there is evidence of junk science now. A man of great wisdom wrote these words under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9) But we can find no disapproval in the word of God against the acquisition of knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Nor did “much learning” drive Paul insane.

In other words, God finds no fault in the pursuit of pure science. The word itself comes from the Latin word for “knowledge” based on the verb “to know”. Here are the seven meanings of “science” with key words highlighted:

– a branch of knowledgeor studydealing with a body of factsor truthssystematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:

– systematic knowledgeof the physical or material world gained through observationand experimentation.

– any of the branches of natural or physical science.

– systematized knowledgein general.

– knowledge, as of factsor principles; knowledgegained by systematic study.

Against all these things, God has no law. But to be aware of the things of God, to know what Paul wrote to Timothy or about the godly gifts bestowed upon Daniel and his friends, we need to systematically grow in knowledge of God’s word through continual study.

I expressed my thoughts on this matter in a recent discussion with a dear transsexual Christian friend (and also a scientist!) who I met through this blog. She had expressed the belief that “there is lot more gray in the bible than the simple black and white that is so often touted to be the case in God’s word.” Here is the main part of my reply:

I actually look at it differently. I believe the Bible is black and white. In some ways it has to be, since God doesn’t change, His word is forever settled in heaven and His yes is yes and His no is no.

From my point of view, it isn’t a matter of black and white versus gray. It is a matter of how simple it is. And some things are simple. The basic message that you can come to Christ by faith, childlike faith, is simple enough that young children and unlearned adults can understand and respond to it positively.

But in deeper matters of theology, it takes time and study to harmonize the various passages of God’s word. It takes work and effort. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” – 2nd Timothy 2:15

The best analogy I can come up with is computer graphics. I am not an expert so I do not know all of terms. But I understand the concepts. Did you know that there are two ways to achieve gray in computer graphics? One way is grayscale. That is a method of adjusting the relative darkness of a pixel. So if a printer is printing a grayscale page, 100% ink equates to black. Anything less than that and you start getting into lighter and darker shades of gray.

But the older method, the only method which certain devices (e.g. laser printers and fax machines) can process, is a binary image. Now if your image resolution is comparable to the video game “Pong”, it will be very difficult to achieve gray. To achieve gray instead of a splotchy black and white image, you need a lot of pixels per square inch (i.e., very tiny pixels, so tiny that it would be almost impossible to see one pixel of black on an otherwise white screen with the naked eye – maybe it would be impossible these days). With high resolution, provide enough magnification and you can see that what looks to be gray is really a combination of very tiny black and white dots.

Over time, ways were found to create processes to make pixels smaller and the resolution better. Each development and advance is like another time of studying the word, except each technology advance improves what you can create; each Bible study improves the amount of detail you can see. And the more detail you can see, the better you know, using Ecclesiastes 3 as an example, when it is right to kill or heal, to speak or be silent, to love or hate, to wage war or make peace. And that would also be true about discerning when it is acceptable in God’s sight to change the gender identity you present to the world.

Almost by necessity to cope with a complex world, people tend to simplify whenever possible. Overdo simplification when it comes to Christianity, turn the microscopic pixels of God’s word into large polka dots, try to squeeze an infinite God into a tight box: you will run into serious error sooner or later.